A day after a state appeals court in San Francisco upheld a Berkeley school district policy that uses racial composition, family income and a student’s address when assigning students to schools, the plaintiffs are gearing up to appeal the court’s decision.

The Berkeley policy was challenged in an Alameda County Superior Court lawsuit filed in 2006 by the American Civil Rights Foundation and represented by Sacramento-based Pacific Legal Foundation, a conservative public-interest law firm. That suit was tossed in April 2007, but an appeal was filed. Tuesday’s ruling was on that appeal.

The three-judge panel of the California First District Court of Appeal ruled unanimously that the use of neighborhood racial information doesn’t violate Proposition 209, which was enacted by voters in 1996 as a state constitutional amendment and bars racial preference or discrimination by state and local governments in public education, employment and contracting.

“I’m very excited that the court of appeals ruled in the district’s favor because we worked for years, so we see this as a culmination of all the work we did,” said Francisco Martinez, principal architect of the Berkeley school district’s plan. “It’s very rewarding for us. This is the third time the court has agreed with Berkeley in supporting integration and desegregation in public schools.”

Martinez said the decision is important for the district’s children: “It means they will continue to attend schools that are diverse and reflect the diversity of Berkeley, socioeconomically and racially as well. It is important because students benefit from having other students that are diverse, and they can learn from each other. We really believe it enriches the educational experience of all students.”

The plaintiffs don’t see it that way.

“The court has carved a big hole in Proposition 209 by permitting school districts to use race as one of the factors that determine where kids will go to school,” Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Alan Foutz said. “Prop. 209 is comprehensive and categorical in banning the use of race in student assignment. The court has undermined that mandate for color blind educational policy by allowing districts to continue using race in its student assignment decisions.”

Foutz said the plaintiffs anticipate an appeal and must submit a petition for review to the California Supreme Court before April 27.

“We anticipated from the beginning that we would end up in the California Supreme Court,” he said.

In the ruling, Justice Patricia Sepulveda wrote that the district’s policy doesn’t transgress Prop. 209 because it “does not show partiality, prejudice or preference to any student on the basis of that student’s race.”

The court said there is no violation because “every student within a given neighborhood receives the same treatment, regardless of his or her individual race.”

Under Berkeley’s diversity balancing plan, city neighborhoods, which consist of four to eight city blocks, are assigned a diversity category based on a formula that considers with equal weight the overall racial composition of the neighborhood, the average household income and other factors.

Berkeley allows students to pick their desired schools, but if a school is oversubscribed, a student is assigned a school using a computerized lottery weighted by his neighborhood’s “diversity score.” The diversity score is designed to help make sure the diversity of each school within the district is proportionate to the diversity of the overall district.

Tuesday was the first time an appellate court ruled on a school district’s voluntary integration plan since California voters passed Prop. 209. The school board adopted the plan in 2004, and Martinez said that during the legal wrangling the district has not done anything different in assigning students to schools.

American Civil Liberties Union attorney Jory Steele, who represented parents supporting the district policy, said the ruling has statewide implications for school districts seeking diversity plans.

“I think the Berkeley policy charts a path that can be used by other districts that would like a voluntary desegregation plan,” Steele said.